Tag Archives: cowards

[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British!

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
——————————————————————Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”(“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

BigDisappointingFascistLoser ?
——————————————————————“Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————Jiminy Cricket!

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”

“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
——————————————————————Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

Let’s say you’re one of “The Skeptics,”(“The Burzynski Skeptics,”) don’t have a life (but doesn’t that go without saying?), enjoy associating yourself with known liars, cowards, ethically and intellectually challenged individuals, so you grab a newspaper(It’s doubtful that USA TODAY would qualify), and if you do NOT know what a “Newsie” is, go online and select an article which has a plethora of innuendo and allegations, compose a missive to your member in Congressassembled about the nothingness you just reviewed, just don’t piss yourself silly when you shoot that zinger off, because you’ve just sent something to your Congressperson, exhibiting what a whacky weed tobaccoday tripper you are, and a prime example of what “Rocky Mountain High” really will mean, starting January1st, 2014

Congratulations, Colorado

My only suggestion is that you add something like:

“Dear Congressperson Y,

I know your time is valuable, but please allow me to waste some of you and your staff’s, as well as provide you with “fodder” you can hang up on the bathroom wall and laugh about for days!

In the next weeks I will be contacting you about all of the “conspiracy theories” in Jesse Ventura’s book, including; but not limited to:

Area 51
AliensThe Denver International Airport
…

Smoke ’em if ya got ’em !
======================================

Letter to Congress

Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME:

My name is _______ and I am one of your constituents

I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities

A few weeks ago, I wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant prices

On Friday November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page exposé in the USA Today

Additionally, since I last contacted your office, the FDA has released site inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)

The findings were horrifying

Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, therapeutic response […] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”

This means that several patients who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were patients who were reported as having a “partial response” and “stable disease.”

This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate

Some patients admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study

Even though patients needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a patient who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found

The FDA told Burzynski:

“You failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care

GorskiGeekstarts off his soapbox stump speech:
——————————————————————“I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was

After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™”fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’sjackedJulyjabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting”2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest

Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsensepseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large badmainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying

GorskGeek gambits:
——————————————————————“As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?

GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:

“months-long investigation” ?

The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY“investigation” took

From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski“Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY

Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
——————————————————————GorskGeek goofs:
——————————————————————“It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
——————————————————————Thousands read his blog ?

Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?

GorskGeekInspector Gadgets:
——————————————————————“Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
——————————————————————GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trialBurzynski’sattorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the JulyTAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013article[4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions

Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek[1-2+4]

USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”

It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
——————————————————————GorskGeekdreamsicles:
——————————————————————“I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”

“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?

Really ?

GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac

GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack

For example, in counterhackattackingEric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
——————————————————————GorskGeek gesticulates:
——————————————————————“He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski

GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.

Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
——————————————————————“Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle

Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?

Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT

GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top

To him, Burzynski is an infidel

I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god“Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeekhas no clothes

Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’snot-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself

However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’slies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
——————————————————————GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
——————————————————————“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You” [5]
——————————————————————GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy

“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“

“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“[6]
——————————————————————GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards

So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
——————————————————————“In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“[7]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————“In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“[8]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS

My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:

Water… is toxic?

This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
——————————————————————GorskGeekclaims:
——————————————————————“Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
——————————————————————GorskGeek gassticulates:
——————————————————————“As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”

“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“

“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:

GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

GorskGeekclaims that Josiadied of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy

GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy

Of course, none of this is new information
——————————————————————GorskGeek hacks:
——————————————————————“I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“

“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
——————————————————————GorskGeekflummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannahexperienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]

GorskGeekgambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’svlogs after gears up for Great Britain

Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’sprogress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’srant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks

You get the picture

That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’ssorryarticle
——————————————————————GorskGeekblowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
——————————————————————GorskGeekidolizes the Burzynski Research Institute(BRI)IRB, because of Burzynski’sscientific publications, which indicate:
——————————————————————2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
——————————————————————3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
——————————————————————9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
——————————————————————2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
——————————————————————6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
——————————————————————GorskGeek then does a piss-poor“slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”

GorskGeekfalls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]

I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s commentlink from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The articleclaims:
——————————————————————“Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————It advises:
——————————————————————“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”[4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

“Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“

“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A:“Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A:“Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“

A:“(compassion exception)”

A:“Uh, exceptions“

Q: That’s normal ?

A:“Yes”“So”

A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival inmalignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%)2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

“He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind”
——————————————————————Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to “change my mind”
——————————————————————“So what’s the point of any further discourse?”
——————————————————————Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
——————————————————————“His idea of “debate” is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we’ll never know”
——————————————————————Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?

Bob ? [3]

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
——————————————————————1:13:00
——————————————————————“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“

“Um, seems only fair“
——————————————————————1:14:00
——————————————————————2:09:00
——————————————————————“… and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
——————————————————————2:10:15
——————————————————————2:18:00
——————————————————————“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
——————————————————————2:19:00
——————————————————————“What none of us understands is his motivation”

“I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy”

“When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re obviously NOT from Texas

It’s like a whole ‘notherCountry

My motivation ?

I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media

Verstehen ?

There’s a saying:

“Don’t mess with Texas”
——————————————————————“It has to go deeper than that”

“He didn’t wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski”

“He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re still wrong

Prove it
——————————————————————“The sheer amount of time and effort he’s pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested”
——————————————————————Woo, why don’t you count the amount of comments I posted on “Orac’s” Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
——————————————————————“He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn’t even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant”

“I don’t believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic”
——————————————————————Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?

Prove it
——————————————————————“I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)”
——————————————————————Woo, where have I been “promoting and supporting” them ?

Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how “The Skeptics™” lie
——————————————————————“I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized”
——————————————————————Woo, I have no problem calling you an “idiot” after you lied about me [2]
——————————————————————“His folksy “y’all” and his laughter made him a real person”

“He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being”

“However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance”
——————————————————————Woo, please cite one of these “supposed”Tweetsyou have a problem with

Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bobcarte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
——————————————————————“He simply deserves to be ignored”

“He has a serious personality disorder and doesn’t merit any of our attention ever again”
——————————————————————Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian

“He kind of admitted it when he said that he’d be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths”
——————————————————————Guy, which homeopathic “remedy” has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
——————————————————————“You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,”
——————————————————————Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
======================================Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:28 am

“Actually, we know what he is”

“A troll”

“Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?”
——————————————————————“Troll” is an excusecowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
======================================IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am

“Excellent summary, Guy”

“I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get “in the game.””

“As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions”

“His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence”

“I’m thankful that he’s unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients”

“Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don’t think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste”

“His 15 minutes of fame needs to end”
——————————————————————Quidama, I’m sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a “reality check”: [4]
——————————————————————A. Tried to “control the conversation”1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————B.Interrupted the other individual the most:1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
——————————————————————C.Asked the most questions:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————D.Most speaking time:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————E.Most words:1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
——————————————————————F.Most characters:1. 66,123 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 43,245 – DJT
——————————————————————G.Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a “debate” where the participants were free to choose their own responses:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————H.Proved they do NOT know how to debate1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————I.Proved they do NOT have manners1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————J.Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?)1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————K.Controlled themself best:
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————L.Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————“Thanks for all you do!”
——————————————————————You’re welcome

“It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know”
——————————————————————DJT – Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots [2]

You know, stuff like that
——————————————————————BB – “Was it down-voted ?”
——————————————————————DJT – Oh no
——————————————————————BB – “No”
——————————————————————DJT – It wasn’t down-voted
——————————————————————BB – “Mhmm”======================================Bob, what are you talking about ?

YOU were the 1st person to comment on that article

WHERE is there a “down-vote” option on #Forbes ?======================================DJT – They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
——————————————————————BB – “Mhmm”
——————————————————————DJT – SoI, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know [3]
——————————————————————1:25:14
======================================Bob, isn’t it nice how your picture is the 3rd one, below ?
======================================
PHARMA & HEALTHCARE | 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,516 viewsA Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics106 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now

“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there

I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?

I also see that “The Skeptics™”fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™”#epicSkeptic#fail#failureDisaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]

Mark McAndrew

Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article

About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either

You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article

Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?

Who’s the liar?

Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?

I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments

As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link

4 – Mark McAndrew2 – lilady, R.N.1 – Margaret Hardman1 – David Doran

Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?

And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here

Difference without a distinction

Guten Tag 🙂

DJT, USA

Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?

Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong

Problem solved

See how easy that is?

And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them

I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts

Do you?

Sayanora

DJT, USA

Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

“I mean, Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately.”

guychapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you

It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues)

Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013

You also commented:

“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,”

yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.

It is apropo you commented:

“Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,”

since President Nixon is credited with starting the

“War on Cancer”

and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency, but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974

It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his “pal”

Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist?

No?

That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant

Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:

“Against that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?

No?

That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above

Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress

guychapman 5 days ago

You don’t really understand the scientific concept of proof do you?

guychapman, you do NOT really understand the concept of proof, do you?

“That probably explains why you are swallowing Burzynski’s PR hook line and sinker.”

guychapman, NO, unlike you, I actually reviewed things and am able to provide “citations,” “references,” and / or “links”

“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals.”

guychapman, where is your “citation(s),” “reference(s),” and / or “link(s)”?

“He needs to publish his science in a way that others can understand and replicate.”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons”

guychapman, NO, “you” did NOT say that, since I am NOT “you”

(Forbes)

Didymus Thomas 5 days ago

As former President Ronald Reagan used to say: “Well, there you go again.”

Let me make this perfectly clear and unambiguous as I can.

1. I am NOT Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.

3. I am NOT Eric Merola, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

4. I am NOT Randy Hinton, I have never met him, this article is the first place I have seen his name.

“What you mean is:”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, including Antineoplastons”.

guychapman, when are you going to show whether you are just a coward or not, and PROVE IT?

“Because the point about which you are in denial is that there is no credible evidence that antineoplastons cure anything.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

The FDA’s Drug Review Process:

Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“The endlessly repeated list of low quality publication does not come anywhere close to filling in the gap which ought to be filled by the sixty-one human trials he never published – and all the available evidence indicates he never had any intention of doing so.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

The “FACT” one should know is that clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between Burzynski and his shill Merola, and the palpable fraud and quack Hoxsey?”

guychapman,

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between guychapman and his shill Guy Chapman, and the palpable fraud and quack @SceptiGuy / @vGuyUK?”

Guy (Help!)

User:JzG/help|Help!

Trust me, Guy, nothing can help YOU

Boris Ogon 6 days ago

“One interesting element is that Merola himself hasn’t shown up to defend his vexatious DMCA claim, which he has effectively admitted to be meritless by offering to drop it if c0nc0rdance can somehow get the after-the-fact third-party mirrors to not include his E-mail address.”

Boris Ogon, did you entirely ignore the Forbes article?

"A well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance” reports receiving a DMCA take-down notice from Eric Merola after posting a video critical of Burzynski."

"According to C0nc0rdance:He objected to my “Fair Use” of a small low-res image of his movie poster.”

“Instead, he drops a post on his Facebook page complaining about this article and mischaracterizing the situation, and 10 minutes later, his adherents appear and start babbling incoherently.”

“Wow, and people say the “Skeptics” (aka Astroturf campaign) aren’t powerful and with the system behind them.”

“This is what happens when I take down a YouTube video making false claims against my film and Burzynski as well as illegally using copyrighted images of me without permission within (not to mention publishing my personal emails in which I received countless profanity filled threats also in their YouTube post, and they claim “we” threaten – this is the system fighting back, hard):

For anyone unfamiliar with the tiresome tactic of “Didymus [Judas] Thomas” of trying to drive signal-to-noise ratio into the ground while being completely unable to respond coherently, this is not a bad place to start:http://goo.gl/f59kT
He was eventually blocked under the “Competence is Required” policy and started shooting off typically garbled E-mails to Jimmy Wales demanding personal attention.